Lolita R. Alamayri vs.

Rommel, Elmer, Erwin, Roiler And Amanda, All Surnamed

Pabale G.R. No. 151243 April 30, 2008

Facts:
On February 6, 1984, a complaint for specific performance with damages was
filed by Sesinando Fernando before the RTC alleging that Nelly Nave reneged on their
agreement involving the sale of Nave’s land.On February 20, 1984, Nelly Nave
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Pabale siblings. Subsequently,
the Pabale siblings filed a Motion to Intervene. Nave filed a Motion to Dismiss
but was denied. Nave then filed a Motion to Admit Amended Answer and
Amended Reply and Cross-claim against the Pabale siblings alleging the she is
incapacitated to contact because of her mental deficiency based on the
psychological evaluation report conducted on 1985 by a clinical psychologist. The
motion was denied. She filed a motion for reconsideration but before the motion
could be acted upon, Atty. Vedasto Gesmundo, her husband, filed a Petition for
Guardianship of Nave with the RTC. The petition was granted and Atty. Paner was
appointed as regular guardian. Nave thereafter died, and on September 20, 1993, Atty.
Gesmundo executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication for the estate of Nave. On
February 14, 1996, he filed a motion to dismiss the case filed against Nave. The Pabale
siblings opposed. On January 9, 1997, Gesmundo filed a motion asking the court to
substitute him over the case as successor to Nelly. Later, Lolita Alamayre, as buyer of
the parcel of land under dispute, petitioned the court to be substituted over Gesmundo.
The RTC decided in favor of Alamayre, contending that the sale to the Pabale siblings is
null and void. The decision was reversed on appeal. Hence, the petition.

Issue:
Whether or not a person’s incompetence as settled in a special proceeding bars
the re-litigation of the same fact in a Civil Case based on res judicata.

Held:
No. The doctrine of res judicata posits that the conclusiveness of judgment bars
the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or question already settled in a
previous case. In this case, conclusiveness of judgment cannot be applied since
there is no identity of parties and nor is there identity of issues between the
special proceeding on guardianship and the civil case on the validity of a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Rule 93 of the Rules of Court governs the proceedings for the
appointment of a guardian. A petition for appointment of a guardian is a special
proceeding without the usual parties in an ordinary case, the objective of which is
to determine whether a person is indeed a minor or an incompetent who has no
capacity to care for himself and/or his properties; and to determine who is most
qualified to be appointed as his guardian. Thus, there is no identity of parties
since the rules do not necessitate that creditors of the minor or incompetent be
identified and notified since their presence is not essential to the proceedings for
appointment of a guardian. There is neither an identity of issue in this case
between the special proceeding and the civil case that may bar the latter, by
conclusiveness of judgment, from ruling on the competency of Nave when she
executed the Deed of Sale. The main issue in the special proceeding was
whether Nave was incompetent at the time of the filing of the petition with the RTC in
1986. On the other hand, the issue in the civil case was whether Nave was an
incompetent when she
executed a Sees of Sale in 1984, hence rendering the sale void. While both
cases involve the determination of incompetency, it must be established at two
separate times, and the finding of incompetency in 1986 does not automatically
mean that she was so in 1984. Capacity to act is supposed to attach to a
person who has not previously been declared incapable. It was only in 1986 that
Nave was declared incompetent, hence there is no basis to declare that she
was also incompetent in 1984